[Advaita-l] Theory of Language: Mimamsa, Advaita and Vyakarana - 2 of 3

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste, Siva Senani ji,

Thanks, that was very helpful. Its good to see that Mahabhashyakara clearly
states that Agama is also not a modification but a replacement of the
entire "pada". However, it is curious as to why Patanjali uses the word
pada instead of shabda in the context.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste.
> The PUrvapakshin is not saying that the translation is wrong, he is saying
> that the sUtra itself has to be wrong, as on the one hand the MImAMsaka
> says that "dadhi" and "dadhy" are different Sabdas, whereas the sUtra is
> saying that "dadhy" is a form obtained by replacing the "i" in "dadhi" by
> "y".
> Of course you are right that in the view of the VaiyAkaraNa, AdeSa
> operates upon the entire word, not just one letter. In the bhAshya under
> dAdhAghvadAp 1.1.20, Patanjali shows that not merely AdeSa, but even Agama
> operates through AdeSa in place of the entire word:
> सर्वे सर्वपदादेशा दाक्षीपुत्रस्य पाणिनेः। एकदेशविकारे हिनित्यत्वं
> नोपपद्यते ॥In the opinion of PANini, the son of DAkshI, all (i.e. Agamas,
> AdeSas etc.) are the AdeSas of whole words, for if there is change in one
> place then Sabdanityatva is not possible.
> The MimAMsaka answers the objector by interpreting the sUtra as a niyama
> rather than a plain vidhi. The VaiyAkaraNa's resolution is to remind that
> all substitutions are conceptual or mental and not real, and that all
> grammatical operations are to be understood as happening through the device
> of substitution of whole words.
> RegardsN. Siva Senani
>
>